When ‘conflicts of interests’ are good

In our Western corporate culture, we’re conditioned to recoil at the idea of conflicts of interests. Conflicts of interest are bad, avoiding them is good, and there is no gray area in between. But is that always true?

In Asia, where I practiced law for two decades, parties coming together to form joint ventures would often use only one lawyer to negotiate and draft the documents. The lawyer (me) would technically be retained by only one of the parties, and bills for legal fees would go only to that party, who would pay them. But it was understood that the other party would also be relying on me, as the only lawyer at the table, to create the legal basis for the joint venture.

One reason the one-lawyer approach made sense was that it solved the mother tongue problem. If one party was from China, say, and the other from Japan, they could bridge the language gap by agreeing to use a third language — English — for the JV documents. Then they’d agree to use just one native English speaking lawyer to create the documents. That would avoid the problem of having separate teams of lawyers who might have unequal English language skills. Or worse (in the parties’ view), having two teams of native English speaking lawyers who would be negotiating in a language neither company felt completely comfortable with.

I don’t believe the one-lawyer approach put me in actual violation of the ABA rules about conflicts of interest. Only one party had formally retained me, all legal fees were billed to and paid by that party (if there were arrangements for the other party to reimburse some of the legal fees, I didn’t know about them), and my role as the sole lawyer at the table was of course fully disclosed. Further, even if there was a technical conflict, it was waivable because the two parties weren’t in a dispute, in which case a waiver would have been ineffective and impermissible under the ABA’s rules.

Was I comfortable being the only lawyer at the table? The first couple of times, it felt strange not to have the benefit of an opposing lawyer and his or her brain power. But I eventually settled into the one-lawyer role and felt privileged to play it. It meant my actual client and its proposed joint venture partner both had faith that I would act fairly. Both believed I would help them achieve their mutual goals and so they put me in a position of special trust.

Why trust me? In every case, I’d worked with at least one of the parties over several years. One or both sides had already “tested” me in smaller deals where less was at stake, and decided to trust me on the bigger stuff. And besides, everyone involved always knew that if I violated anyone’s trust, if I did something to hurt either party, the word would spread that I couldn’t be trusted, and I’d be shunned in Asia for the rest of my days there.

The actual drafting and negotiating process would vary. Usually I was there whenever the two parties met. I’d listen to the technical and commercial discussions to equip myself to write those terms into the documents. For the legal stuff and boilerplate, I’d write a draft, then take as much time as necessary to explain it to the parties. If they agreed something didn’t quite reflect the deal they had in mind, I’d change the words and explain it again. At some point each party would nod their consent and we’d move on.

It was great work for a lawyer. Although not all of the joint ventures I worked on were commercial successes, none of them ever exploded into open disputes that needed to be litigated. The spirit of collegiality the JVs were formed in lasted to the end, even when the business mission didn’t work out.

To be clear, there’s no virtue in actual conflicts of interest. Acting in secret against the interests of one’s employer to achieve personal gain is always wrong. But what I learned is that sometimes what we might at first assume to be a conflict of interest could actually be something else. It could be a position of special trust.

____

Richard L. Cassin, pictured above, is editor at large of the FCPA Blog.

Founder of the FCPA Blog and Editor at Large. He has been named multiple times as one of the 100 Most Influential People In Business Ethics by Ethisphere Magazine and is a Trust Across America Top Thought Leader. He’s a member of the DC, Virginia, and Florida bars. His At Large column is a regular feature of the FCPA Blog.

Share this post

LinkedIn

Facebook

Twitter

1 Comment

SGx5bnVyIErDtnJ1bmRzc29u

July 28, 2019 at 11:22 am

Interesting article mr. Cassin, perhaps it would be more interesting if we look at the motivations of the lawers in the case of single lawer and both parties lawered up to the teeth. And also at the legal postition and repercussions for the lawers in both cases if everything goes to hell in a handbasket. In the case of single lawer the lawer is no longer mearly a hired mercenary which then goes on his merry way… he is an active third partiy to the negotiations and if as I understand his motivation is no longer just the advantage to his employer I would suggest that single lawer approace is superior to the dealmakings of two kings both armed to to the teeth. Motivation runs the world, not laws nor rules. They did not need to trust you…. your motivation was to make the deal work. Then again… I might be wrong.

Legal

Quick Links

About

We set out in 2007 to bring our readers free and unrestricted coverage of all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions — the first to do that in real-time.

Since then we’ve published more than 7,500 posts by 600 different authors.

Our mission is to help compliance professionals and others everywhere understand how corruption happens, what it does to people and institutions, and how anti-corruption laws and compliance programs work.